Radioactive Parent

Stable Daughter

Half life

Potassium 40

Argon 40

Rubidium 87

Strontium 87

48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232

Lead 208

14 billion years

Uranium 235

Lead 207

704 million years

Uranium 238

Lead 206

4.47 billion years

Carbon 14

Nitrogen 14

5730 years

The radioactivity of Potassium 40 is
unusual, in that two processes take place:

b-decay:

88.8%

electron capture: 11.2%

At the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was
published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years
old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly
established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was
discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years old… What happened?
4

The study of geology grew out of field studies associated with
mining and engineering during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were
used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way.At first, the use of "key" diagnostic fossils was used to compare
different areas of the geologic column.Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct
dating method was available until the twentieth century.

However, before this time some very popular
indirect
methods were available. For example, Lord Kelvin had estimated the ages of
both the Earth and the Sun based on cooling rates. The answer of 25 million years deduced by Kelvin was not received
favorably by geologists. Both the physical geologists and paleontologists could
point to evidence that much more time was needed to produce what they saw in the
stratigraphic and fossil records. As one answer to his critics, Kelvin produced
a completely independent estimate -- this time for the age of the Sun. His
result was in close agreement with his estimate of the age of the earth. The
solar estimate was based on the idea that the energy supply for the solar
radioactive flux is gravitational contraction. These two independent and
agreeing dating methods for of the age of two primary members of the solar
system formed a strong case for the correctness of his answer within the
scientific community.

This just goes to show that just because independent estimates of
age seem to agree with each other doesn't mean that they're correct - despite
the fact that this particular argument is the very same one used to support the
validity of radiometric dating today. Other factors and basic assumptions
must also be considered.

Of course, Kelvin formed his estimates of the age of the Sun
without the knowledge of fusion as the true energy source of the Sun. Without
this knowledge, he argued that, "As for the future, we may say, with equal
certainty, that inhabitants of the Earth cannot continue to enjoy the light and
heat essential to their life, for many million years longer, unless sources now
unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creation."
This last statement was prophetic. There were indeed powerful and unknown
sources of energy fueling the Sun's energy output.

The same is true of the basis of Kelvin's estimate of the age of
the Earth. It was based on the idea that no significant source of novel heat
energy was affecting the Earth. He believed this even though he did admit that
some heat might be generated by the tidal forces or by chemical action. However,
on the whole, he thought that these sources were not adequate to account for
anything more than a small faction of the heat lost by the Earth. Based on these
assumptions he at first suggested an age of the Earth of between 100 Ma and 500
Ma. This estimate was actually reduced over his lifetime to between 20 Ma and 40
Ma and eventually to less than 10 Ma.

Of course, later scientists, like John Perry and T. H. Huxley
challenged Kelvin's assumptions. Perry, in particular, a noted physicists and
former assistant to Kelvin, showed that cooling calculations using different but
equally likely assumptions and data resulted in ages for the Earth of as much as
29 Ga. After this came to light, Kelvin admitted that he might just as well have
set his original upper limit on the age of the Earth at 4,000 Ma instead of 400
Ma. Of course, this was a close as Kelvin ever came to publicly recanting his
position. Later, after radioactivity had been proven to be a significant source
of the Earth's internal heat, he did privately admit that he might have been in
error.

What is especially telling about this whole story is the conclusion
of the absolute truth of the conclusion based on premises that are weak, or at
least not adequately demonstrated. Chamberlain (1899) pointed out that Kelvin's
calculations were only as good as the assumptions on which they were based.

"The fascinating impressiveness of rigorous mathematical
analyses, with its atmosphere of precision and elegance, should not blind us to
the defects of the premises that condition the whole process. There is perhaps
no beguilement more insidious and dangerous than an elaborate and elegant
mathematical process built upon unfortified premises." - Chamberlain 1899b:224

Following the discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel (1896), the
possibility of using this phenomenon as a means for determining the age of
uranium-bearing minerals was demonstrated by Rutherford (1906).
In his study Rutherford measured the U and He (He is an intermediate decay
product of U) contents of uranium-bearing minerals to calculate an age.One year later Boltwood (1907) developed the chemical U-Pb method. These
first “geochronology studies” yielded the first “absolute ages” from geologic
material, which seemed to indicate that parts of the Earth's crust were hundreds
of millions of years old. (Boltwood's ages have since been revised).

During this same period of time Thomson (1905), Campbell and Wood
(1906) demonstrated that potassium was radioactive and emitted beta-particles.The first isotopes of potassium (39K and 41K) were
reported by Aston (1921).Kohlhorster (1930)
reported that potassium also emitted gamma radiation. Following theoretical
arguments by Klemperer, Newman and Walke (1935) on the existence of 40K,
which radioactively decayed to 40Ca by beta-emission, Nier (1935)
discovered 40K and reported a value of 8600 for the 39K/40K
ratio.Newman and Walke also suggested the
possibility that 40K could decay to 40Ar.However, it was Von Weizsacker's (1937) argument, based on the abundance
of argon in the Earth's atmosphere relative to the other noble gases (He, Ne,
Kr, and Xe), that 40K also decayed to 40Ar by electron
capture.As a test, Von Weizsacker suggested looking
for excess 40Ar in older K-bearing rocks. By combining Von
Weizsacker’s argon abundance arguments with Kohlhorster’s observation that
potassium emitted gamma-radiation, Bramley (1937) presented strong evidence that
potassium underwent dual decay.Thompson and Rowlands (1943), using a cloud chamber, confirmed that
40Ar was the decay product of 40K undergoing electron capture.The absolute confirmation that 40Ar was the decay product of
40K came when Aldrich and Nier (1948) measured significantly increased
40Ar/36Ar ratios on argon extracted from potassium-rich
minerals relative to the atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio.The rapid development of the K-Ar dating method soon followed.

The
40Ar/39Ar variation of K-Ar dating grew out of
iodine-xenon dating studies of meteorites by Jeffery and Reynolds (1961).In these studies the isotopic ratios of all the noble gases (He, Ne, Ar,
Kr, and Xe) of neutron-irradiated meteorites were measured.This led to the discovery of 39Ar, which is derived from
39K by Merrihue (1965). The first 40Ar/39Ar dating
results were presented in a paper by Merrihue and Turner (1966). Further
development of the 40Ar/39Ar method by Mitchell, (1968),
Brereton, (1970), and Turner, (1971) evaluated the interfering argon isotopes
derived from potassium and calcium (36ArCa, 39ArCa, and
40ArK) and determination of the respective correction factors [ (36Ar/37Ar)Ca,
(39Ar/37Ar)Ca, and (40Ar/39Ar)K].The first applications of the 40Ar/39Ar dating
method of terrestrial rocks compared total fusion 40Ar/39Ar
ages with conventional K-Ar ages (Mitchell, 1968; Dunham et al., 1968; York and
Berger, 1970; Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1971).

It is felt that the 40Ar/39Ar dating method
offers a significant advantage over the conventional 40K/40Ar
dating technique for several reasons.However, the
most significant advantage of the 40Ar/39Ar dating method
over the conventional 40K/40Ar method is the ability to
step-heat samples to higher and higher temperatures until the sample is fused,
and calculate and ages for each step.The 40Ar/39Ar step-heating method provides
information on the internal distribution of potassium relative to argon.The first 40Ar/39Ar step-heating studies of
terrestrial samples were by Fitch (1969), Miller (1970), York (1971), Lanphere
and Dalrymple (1971), and Brereton (1972).1

There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small
amounts of the various isotopes

There is, of course, one radiometric dating method that appears
to overcome the vital "zero date problem". The isochron dating method theoretically overcomes the need
to know the initial ratio of parent and daughter isotopes. It will be
covered in more detail below. For now, we will look at those methods that
do fall under the above assumptions.

Interweaving the relative time scale with the atomic time scale
poses certain problems because only certain types of rocks, chiefly the igneous
variety, can be dated directly by radiometric methods; but these rocks do not
ordinarily contain fossils.Igneous rocks are those
such as granite and basalt, which crystallize from molten material called
"magma". Some have questioned the theory that
granite could be formed from magma this has never been observed or duplicated in
the lab.Some, like Robert Gentry, have even argued that Radio-halos from rapidly
decaying radioactive isotopes in granite seem to indicate that the granites were
formed almost instantly. Of course there seem to me to be fairly reasonable
explanations for this observation which may allow for more slowly forming
granitic rocks. For instance, polonium radiohalos are sometimes associated with
polonium bands generated by the polonium being transported by hydrothermal
fluids along fractures. Many granites that contain polonium radiohalos appear
from their geologic contexts to have been formed during the Flood, and therefore
cannot have been primordial (that is, created) granites as Gentry has suggested
(
Link ).

Most sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone, and shale (which do contain
fossils) are related to the radiometric time scale by bracketing them within
time zones that are determined by dating appropriately selected igneous rocks in
lava flows, or weathered from lava flows.Potassium -
Argon and Argon - Argon dating are based on the current understanding that
radioactive Potassium-40 decays to the stable form, Argon-40 with a half-life of
approximately 1.25 billion years.The same principle
holds true for the other isotope dating methods.

Radioactive decay occurs at a constant
exponential or geometric rate.The rate of decay is proportional to the number of parent atoms present.There are some circumstances that can affect this rate such as magnetic
fluctuations etc... But in general, this rate is felt by the vast majority of
mainstream scientists to be a fundamental constant. That was until
August of 2008 Jenkins et. al., published a paper suggesting that the decay rate
of radioactive elements is related to the Earth's distance from the Sun.
In other words, the decay rates show annual changes that closely reflect the
Earth's distance from the Sun (see illustration).51 Of course,
the detected variation is no more than 0.2% of the published rates, but this
paper is still quite interesting since such a correlation was never suspected
before. If magnetic fluxuations or other influencing forces are strong
enough, radiometric decay rates could be much more significantly effected.
In short, the assumption that decay rates are immune to outside influences isn't
as solid as it once appeared to be.

However, if one does assume a constant decay rate, and if one
starts with an originally pure sample of “parent element,” then the proportion
of parent to daughter tells us the number of half-lives, which has been used to
find the supposed age of igneous rocks.For example, if there are equal amounts of parent and daughter isotopes,
then one half-life has passed.If there are three
times as many daughter isotopes as parent, then two half-lives have passed, and
so on.

Most minerals, which contain radioactive isotopes, are in igneous
rocks. The majority of scientists today assume that the dates they give indicate
the time the magma cooled.This also assumes that there was no initial daughter isotopes
contained in the magma at the time of cooling.The assumption is that at least a great majority of the isotope present
was the parent isotope. This parent isotope then degraded
to the daughter isotope over time.Consider the following statement by Dalrymple, a well-known geologist:

"The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can
be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter
isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine
chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are
heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of
40K escapes from the liquid."
2

So, according to Dalrymple, K-Ar or Ar-Ar are the only methods that
have little or no concern for the presence of initial daughter isotopes.This means that all the other radioisotope-dating methods (excepting
isochron methods) are brought into serious question.The reason for this is because unless the initial ratio of parent to
daughter isotope is known, the current ratio would be worthless as a means of
determining elapsed time.A rock cannot be said to
be millions or billions of years old if there is no way of knowing what the
original composition of the rock was at the time that it was formed.
The assumption for the K-Ar method is that all argon escapes at the time of rock
formation because argon is a gas while potassium is not.
Likewise, the other non-isochron dating methods, such as uranium-lead,
also fall short because who is to say when the "zero date" was
when there was only parent isotope and no daughter? Because of this
problem, it might be a significant error to simply assume that all original
isotopes present in a given rock were parent isotopes.

"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is
based assumes zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it
solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty." CEN
Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996

Lets now consider how fossils are dated with many of these methods,
such as the potassium-argon method.The mineralized
fossils themselves are not directly datable by radiometric techniques.
The sedimentary rock that buried them is also not datable.
If there is some igneous rock fragments in that sedimentary rock layer, these
fragments are dated, most commonly, by the 40K/40Ar dating
method described above.It is assumed then that the
fossil is as old as the igneous rock fragment that it is buried with.
Aside from the zero-date problems noted above, one might consider the
possibility that the fossil might not be as old as the sediment that buried it
in the first place.For example, lets say that my pet dog dies.I decide to bury it in the back yard.Is the dog as old as the dirt that I buried it in?Likewise, who is to say that some fossils were not buried in sedimentary
material that was weathered from significantly more ancient formations?

Since Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating techniques are the
most common and are considered, even by geologists, to be among the most
accurate of all the radioisotope dating methods, lets consider these in
particular detail.

Argon is a noble gas. The main isotopes of argon in terrestrial
systems are 40Ar (99.6%), 36Ar (0.337%), and 38Ar
(0.063%). Naturally occurring 40K decays to stable 40Ar
(11.2%) by electron capture and by positron emission, and decays to stable
40Ca (88.8%) by negatron emission; 40K has a half-life of 1.25
billion years.

Most of the argon isotope literature deals with measurement of
40Ar for use in 40K/40Ar dating of rocks. The
conventional 40K/40Ar dating method depends on the
assumption that the rocks contained no argon at the time of formation and that
all the subsequent radiogenic argon (i.e., 40Ar) was quantitatively
retained. Minerals are dated by measurement of the concentration of potassium,
and the amount of radiogenic 40Ar that has accumulated. The minerals
that are best suited for dating include biotite, muscovite, and plutonic/high
grade metamorphic hornblende, and volcanic feldspar; whole rock samples from
volcanic flows and shallow instrusives can also be dated if they are unaltered
(Faure, 1986).

Under some circumstances the requirements for successful 40K/40Ar
dating may be violated. For example, if 40Ar is lost by diffusion
while the rock cooled, the age-dates represent the time elapsed since the rock
cooled sufficiently for diffusive losses to be insignificant.Or, if excess 40Ar is present in the rock, the calculated
age-dates are too old.The 40Ar/39Ar
method is thought to be able to overcome this problem inherent with the
40K/40Ar method.

The
40Ar/39Ar dating method is based on the formation of
39Ar as a result of the intentional irradiation of K-bearing samples
within a nuclear reactor. The bombardment produces various isotopes of Ar, K,
Ca, and Cl, but the dominant source of 39Ar is from 39K.Radioactive 39Ar decays back to 39K by beta
emission with a half-life of 269 years, but the decay is slow compared to the
analysis time and can be ignored (Faure, 1986).The principal “advantage” of 40Ar/39Ar dating is
that argon can be released partially by stepwise heating of irradiated samples,
producing a spectrum of dates related to the “thermal history of the rock”
(understanding that Argon is a gas while Potassium is not).

Because of this, it is much easier to determine a 40K/40Ar
ratio and do it in a stepwise fashion with varying amounts of time and heat.This "stepwise" testing is thought to eliminate the errors caused by
“extraneous” argon that might have “contaminated” the rock over time either by a
loss or a gain of “outside” argon (ie: atmospheric argon).The problem with this theory is that who is to know which step, or
average of steps in the process represents the “correct” 40K/40Ar
ratio?How is this calibrated? Also, even if the argon-argon dating method does eliminate the
"contamination" problem, it does not solve the problem of original argon.
Did the clock get reset to zero when the volcano erupted? Or, was there
some argon trapped in the rocks originally? Also, the 40Ar/39Ar dating method is not an
independent dating method. It must be first
calibrated against a sample of "known age". This age of this sample is
usually determined by, you guessed it, the 40K/40Ar method (see discussion of Ar/Ar
calibration below).

Recent experiments on volcanoes of known ages have been done using
the 40Ar/39Ar dating method, which seem to confirm its
accuracy.Recent testing of volcanic material from Mt. Vesuvius was dated accurately with the 40Ar/39Ar method to within seven years of the actual event.340Ar/39Ar
Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger
was written by P. R. Renne et. al. and published in Science
277: 1279-1280 (1997). Renne tested Ar-Ar dating by checking it against the 79
A.D. eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii. Renne and his team noted that,
"Analysis of single crystals, for example by laser fusion, can obviate
xenocrystic contamination, but single crystals are seldom large enough to yield
measurable quantities of 40Ar* through radiogenic ingrowth
in the Holocene [i.e. last 12,000 years]." Would Ar-Ar dating
methods work such recent material? It apparently did. The testing returned
an age of 1925±94 years. The true age was 1918 years. The test was off
only 7 years. The conclusions of Renne and his team read as follows:

Thus despite the presence of excess 40Ar, a sample less
than 2000 years old can be dated with better than 5% precision, validating
40Ar/39Ar dating as a reliable geochronometer into the late
Holocene. These results also demonstrate that excess 40Ar can be
identified in volcanic sanidine, and while perhaps negligible in pre-Holocene
rocks, it has important consequences for sample at the limit of the method’s
applicability. Further improvement in precision of 40Ar/39Ar
analysis of historically dated samples may lead to welcome refinements in the
ages of neutron fluence monitors, currently a limitation on the accuracy of the
40Ar/39Ar method. Our results also substantiate validity of the
40Ar/39Ar method in establishing the eruptive histories of
populated active volcanic regions, where such information is vital to volcanic
hazard assessment.

Of note however is that this test was
not double blinded, and the number of such tests is not statistically
significant as far as scientific analysis is concerned. Although
interesting, it is basically a case study report, and as such it has very little
scientific weight as far as statistical predictability.

In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating
meteorites, or Precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the
fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later “ages”.Since 40K/40Ar and 40Ar/39Ar
dating are most commonly used to "prove" the ancient age of many life forms, I
will discuss these dating methods specifically in more detail and show that
they, along with the other common methods of isotope dating, are to be highly
questioned.I will begin this section with a short
discussion from Andrew Snelling, an associate professor of geology in El Cajon,
California.

According to the assumptions foundational to
potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not
be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when
they form. When measured, all 40Ar*
in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of
40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that
volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that
is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric
contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K.This excess 40Ar*
represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the
parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age
significance.

However, are all other rocks in the earth's crust
also susceptible to "contamination" by excess 40Ar*
emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal
rocks would be similarly questionable.

When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks)
is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours
it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5
billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).
In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under
similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to
0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres. This is
approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus
under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed
to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

Because it is known that excess 40Ar*
is carried from the mantle by plumes of mafic magmas up into the earth's crust,
it is equally likely that much of the excess 40Ar*
in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have no way of
knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has
any age significance. Additional to the primordial 40Ar from the
mantle is 40Ar* released from minerals and rocks during
diagenesis and metamorphism, so that there is continual migration and
circulation of both primordial 40Ar and 40Ar*
in the crust which is reflected in their presence in CO2-rich natural
gases. Therefore, when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for K-Ar and Ar-Ar
"dating," one can never be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in
the rocks is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since their
formation, or if some or all of it came from the mantle or from other crustal
rocks and minerals. Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of crustal rocks are
questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them.19

In summary, many scientists assume that since argon is a gas, all
of it should have escaped from the lava before it cooled. Therefore, all the
40Ar in the rock should be the result of decay from potassium. Based on
the measured potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That
is why it does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it
erupted. They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40Ar
escapes, and the atomic clock gets reset to zero.

If all the argon escaped from hot lava of volcanoes that erupted
long ago, then all the argon should escape from the hot lava of volcanoes that
erupt in modern times too. But modern lava does have 40Ar in it. This
is known as the "excess argon problem". Scientists are well
aware of this problem and use various calibration methods to "correct" for this
problem. However, how are these calibration methods established?
Upon what basis are they validated?

Regarding the Ar/Ar dating method in particular, it is an
interesting and seems to me to be a common argument that the problems inherent
in K/Ar dating are overcome by the step-heating method of Ar/Ar dating.
What most people don't realize, or at least don't discuss, is that Ar/Ar method
is not an absolute dating method. Let me emphasize again that this dating method
is a relative
dating method. In other words, it must be calibrated
relative to a different dating method before it can be used to date materials
relative to that other dating method.

"Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be
determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by
another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the
primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. . . Once an accurate and
precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated
relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary
minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar
technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age
of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating
laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise . . . the K/Ar ages are not
always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the
secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique."
49 ( Link )

Step heating does not overcome this
inherent reliance of Ar/Ar dating on calibration with K/Ar or other dating
methods. So, whatever problems exist in the method used for calibration
will be passed on to the Ar/Ar dating method as well. This same problem
exists for all other relative radiometric dating techniques. In addition,
there are other problems with Ar/Ar dating such as the uncertainty of the decay
constants for 40K and 39Ar recoil.

Fission track dating is a radioisotopic
dating method that depends on the tendency of uranium (Uranium-238) to undergo
spontaneous fission as well as the usual decay process. The large amount of
energy released in the fission process ejects the two nuclear fragments into the
surrounding material, causing damage paths called fission tracks. The number of
these tracks, generally 10-20 µ in length, is a function of the initial uranium
content of the sample and of time. These tracks can be made visible under
light microscopy by etching with an acid solution so they can then be counted.

The usefulness of this as a dating
technique stems from the tendency of some materials to lose their fission-track
records when heated, thus producing samples that contain fission-tracks produced
since they last cooled down. The useful age range of this technique is thought
to range from 100 years to 100 million years before present (BP), although error
estimates are difficult to assess and rarely given. Generally it is thought to
be most useful for dating in the window between 30,000 and 100,000 years BP.

A problem with fission-track dating is that
the rates of spontaneous fission are very slow, requiring the presence of a
significant amount of uranium in a sample to produce useful numbers of tracks
over time. Additionally, variations in uranium content within a sample can lead
to large variations in fission track counts in different sections of the same
sample.42

Because of such potential errors, most
forms of fission track dating use a form of calibration or "comparison of
spontaneous and induced fission track density against a standard of known age.
The principle involved is no different from that used in many methods of
analytical chemistry, where comparison to a standard eliminates some of the more
poorly controlled variables. In the zeta method, the dose, cross section, and
spontaneous fission decay constant, and uranium isotope ratio are combined into
a single constant." 43

Of course, this means that the fission
track dating method is not an independent method of radiometric dating, but is
dependent upon the reliability of other dating methods.
The reason for this is also at least partly due to the fact that the actual rate
of fission track production. Some experts suggest using a rate constant of
6.85x10-17
yr-1 while others recommend using a rate of 8.46x10-17
yr-1
(G. A. Wagner, Letters to Nature, June 16, 1977).This difference might not seem like much, but when it
comes to dates of over one or two million years, this difference amounts to
about 25-30% in the estimated age value. In other words, the actual rate of
fission track production isn't really known, nor is it known if this rate can be
affected by various concentrations of U238
or other physical factors. For example, all fission
reactions produce neutrons. What happens if fission from some other radioactive
element, like U235
or some other radioisotope, produces tracks?Might not these trackways be easily confused with those created by
fission of U238?

The human element is also important here.
Fission trackways have to be manually counted.This
is problematic since interpreting what is and what is not a true trackway isn't
easy.Geologists themselves recognize the problem of mistaking non-trackway
imperfections as fission tracks. "Microlites and
vesicles in the glass etch out in much the same way as tracks."45
Of course, there are ways to avoid some of these potential
pitfalls.For example, it is recommended that one
choose samples with as few vesicles and microlites as possible. But, how is one
to do this if they are so easily confused with true trackways? Fortunately,
there are a few other "hints". True tracks are straight, never curved. They also
tend to show characteristic ends that demonstrate "younging" of the etched
track. True tracks are thought to form randomly and have a random orientation.Therefore, trackways that show a distribution pattern tend not to be
trusted as being "true". Certain color and size patterns
within a certain range are also used as helpful hints.Yet, even with all these hints in place, it has been shown that different
people count the same trackways differently - up to 20% differently.44Add up the
human error with the error of fission track rate and we are suddenly up to a
range of error of 50% or so.

This is yet another reason why calibration
with other dating techniques is used in fission track dating. It just isn't very
reliable or accurate by itself.And, it gets even worse. Fairly recently, Raymond Jonckheere and Gunther
Wagner (American Minerologist, 2000) published results showing that there are
two kinds of real fission trackways that had "not been identified previously."
The first type of trackway identified is a "stable" track and the second type is
produced through fluid inclusions. As it turns out, the "stable tracks do not
shorten significantly even when heated to temperatures well above those normally
sufficient for complete annealing of fission tracks."Of course, this means that the "age" of the sample would not represent
the time since the last thermal episode as previously thought.The tracks through fluid are also interesting. They are "excessively
long".This is because a fission fragment traveling
through a fluid inclusion does so without appreciable energy loss. Such
features, if undetected, "can distort the temperature-time paths constructed on
the basis of confined fission-track-length measurements."Again,
the authors propose measures to avoid such pitfalls, but this just adds to the
complexity of this dating "method" and calls into question the dates obtained
before the publication of this paper (i.e., 2000).46

These problems have resulted in several
interesting contradictions, despite calibration.For
example, Naeser and Fleischer (Harvard University) showed that, depending upon
the calibration method chosen, the calculated age of a given rock (from Cerro de
Mercado, Mexico in this case) could be different from each other by a
factor
of "sixty or more" - - "which give geologically unreasonable
ages.In addition, published data concerning the length of fission tracks and
the annealing of minerals imply that the basic assumptions used in an
alternative procedure, the length reduction-correction method, are also invalid
for many crystal types and must be approached with caution unless individually
justified for a particular mineral." [emphasis added] 47Now that's pretty significant - being off by a factor of
sixty or more?! No wonder the authors recommend only
going with results that do not provide "geologically unreasonable ages".

Another example of this sort of aberrancy comes in the form of glass
globs known as "tektites".Tektites are thought to
be produced when a meteor impacts the Earth.When the massive impact creates a lot of heat, which melts the rocks of
the Earth and send them hurtling through the atmosphere at incredible speed.As these fragments travel through the atmosphere, they become superheated
and malleable as they melt to a read-hot glow, and are formed and shaped as they
fly along.It is thought that the date of the impact
can be dated by using various radiometric dating methods to date the tektites.
For example, Australian tektites (known as australites) show K-Ar and fission
track ages clustering around 700,000 years.The problem is that their stratigraphic ages show a far different
picture. Edmund Gill, of the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne,
while working the Port Campbell area of western Victoria uncovered 14 australite
samples in situ
above the hardpan soil zone. This zone had been previously dated by the
radiocarbon method at seven locales, the oldest dating at only 7,300 radiocarbon
years (Gill 1965). Charcoal from the same level as that containing specimen 9
yielded a radiocarbon age of 5,700 years. The possibility of transport from an
older source area was investigated and ruled out. Since the "Port Campbell
australites include the best preserved tektites in the world ... any movement of
the australites that has occurred ... has been gentle and has not covered a
great distance" (Gill 1965). Aboriginal implements have been discovered in
association with the australites. A fission-track age of 800,000 years and a
K-Ar age of 610,000 years for these same australites unavoidably clashes with
the obvious stratigraphic and archaeological interpretation of just a few
thousand years.

"Hence, geological evidence from the
Australian mainland is at variance, both as to infall frequency and age, with
K-Ar and fission-track dating" (Lovering et al. 1972). Commenting on the above
findings by Lovering and his associates, the editors of the book, Tektites,
state that, "in this paper they have built an incontrovertible case for the
geologically young age of australite arrival on earth" (Barnes and Barnes 1973,
p. 214).

This is problematic.
The argument that various radiometric dating methods agree with each other isn't
necessarily true. Here we have the K-Ar and fission track dating methods
agreeing with each other, but disagreeing dramatically with the radiocarbon and
historical dating methods.These findings suggest that, at least as far as tektites are concerned,
the complete loss of 40Ar (and therefore the resetting of the radiometric clock) may not be
valid (Clark et al. 1966). It has also been shown that different parts of the
same tektite have significantly different K-Ar ages (McDougall and Lovering,
1969).This finding suggests a real disconnect when it comes to the reliability
of at least two of the most commonly used radiometric dating techniques.48

In short, it seems like fission track
dating is tenuous a best - even when given every benefit of the doubt.
It is just too subjective and too open to pitfalls in interpretation to be used
as any sort of independent measure of estimating elapsed time.

There is a methodological problem connected with the manner
in which geologists infer the argon-retention abilities of different minerals.
Concerning the suitability of different minerals for K-Ar dating, Faure (1986,
p. 72) writes "The minerals beryl, cordierite, pyroxene, and tourmaline
frequently contain excess 40Ar, while hornblende, feldspar, phlogopite, biotite,
and sodalite contain such excess 40Ar only rarely ... ." And how is this known?
By comparing the K-Ar dates yielded by such minerals with the expected ones.
Thus the correctness of the geologic time scale is assumed in deciding which
minerals are suitable for dating. For example, concerning the use of glauconies
for K-Ar dating, Faure (1986, p. 78) writes, "The results have been confusing
because only the most highly evolved glauconies have yielded dates that are
compatible with the biostrategraphic ages of their host rocks whereas many
others have yielded lower dates. Therefore, K-Ar dates of 'glauconite' have
often been regarded as minimum dates that underestimate the depositional age of
their host." All of the choices are made in order to obtain dates that are more
in agreement with each other.

It is also interesting that Faure (1986, pp. 345-6) mentions that
fission track dating is calibrated (the "zeta calibration") using rocks of
"known" ages. However, if these "known" ages are incorrect, then
fission track dating that is based on these ages is also incorrect. Thus
fission track dating is not an independent test that helps to verify the
accuracy of other tests. The result is that radiometric dating in general
is in danger of being based on circular reasoning.25

Inconsistencies and other
Problems with various Radiometric Dating Techniques

In 1999 Dr. Raul Esperante
teamed up with Dr. Leonard Brand and others to investigate fossil whales
within the Pisco Formation of Peru's Atacama Desert. This formation is
approximately 600 meters thick and consists of many layers of sedimentary
rock. It is bounded by two layers of volcanic ash with the lower ash
layer dating 12 million years older than the upper ash layer (dated by
potassium-argon; K/Ar). This means that, in standard geological
thinking, the 600 meters of sedimentary rock between the ash layers must
have been deposited over the course of some 12 million years of time
(~20,000 years per meter). Yet, within essentially all of these layers
are hundreds of very well preserved fossil whales. In fact, many of
them are so well preserved that their baleen is still intact and attached in
the usual position that baleen is attached in living whales. Usually
baleen detaches within a few days (or even hours) after death. Some of
the fossilized whales and dolphins also have preserved remains of skin
outlines around the fossilized bones. The skeletons themselves are
generally well articulated and show no evidence of scavenging or significant
decay.

There are several problems
that these fossil whales pose for mainstream assumptions regarding
radiometric dating since these features are more consistent with a
catastrophic/rapid formation of all of the fossil-bearing layers within a
much much shorter period of time than radiometric dating suggests:

The fossil whales must have died and been completely buried by
diatomaceous sediment within a very short time of death (no
scavenging, decay, significant disarticulation, or loss of baleen).

The layers are very smooth without significant erosion or unevenness
to suggest the passage of time between layers.

There is no significant bioturbation (very few tunnels or evidence
of trace fossils or digging within the sedimentary layers) that
would be expected given long periods of time between the formation
of subsequent layers.

There are finely preserved shards of volcanic glass within all of
the layers that have very sharp edges without the usual rounding
that would be expected (due to the relatively rapid ability of water
to dissolve silica) if long periods of time took place during the
build up of these sedimentary layers.

These layers were deposited in shallow seas with evidence of flowing
currents, which works against the potential counter-hypothesis that
these layers were formed under anoxic conditions.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes that are produced by interaction of cosmic rays
with the nucleus of the atom. The various isotopes produced have different half
lives (see table). Cosmogenic dating using these isotopes are becoming a popular way to date the time of surface
exposure of rocks and minerals to cosmic radiation. While the idea
is fairly straightforward, there are just a few problems with this dating
method. To illustrate this problem, consider that
3H dating has been used to establish the theory that the driest desert on
Earth, Coastal Range of the Atacama desert in northern Chile (which is 20
time drier than Death Valley) has been without any rain or significant moisture
of any kind for around 25 million years. The only problem with this theory
is that recently investigators have discovered fairly extensive deposits of very
well preserved animal droppings associated with grasses as well as
human-produced artifacts like arrowheads and the like. Radiocarbon dating
of these finding indicate very active life in at least semiarid conditions
within the past 11,000 years - a far cry from 25 million years. So, what
happened?

As it turns out, cosmogenic isotope dating has a host of problems. The
production rate is a huge issue. Production rates depend upon several
factors to include "latitude, altitude, surface erosion rates, sample
composition, depth of sample, variations of cosmic and solar ray flux, inclusion
of other radioactive elements and their contribution to target nucleotide
production, variations in the geomagnetic field, muon capture reactions, various
shielding effects, and, of course, the reliability of the calibration methods
used."

So many variables become somewhat problematic. This problem has been
highlighted by certain studies that have evaluated the published production
rates of certain isotopes which have been published by different groups of
scientists. At least regarding 36Cl
in particular, there has been "no consistent pattern of variance seen between
each respective research group's production rates." (Swanson 2001).
In short, "different analytical approaches at different localities were used to
work out 36Cl production rates, which are discordant."

So, what are the possible explanations for this "discordance"?

"The lack of
consistency
between the various production rates reflects the numerous physical and
geological processes affecting the production of Cl-36” (Swanson and
Caffee 2001).

Analytical error (but this doesn’t account for the large differences).

Uncertainty in the independent chronology used to determine the age of
surfaces used to calibrate a Cl-36 production rate (ex. C-14 dating
uncertainties: reservoir effects and calibration methods?).

There are 3 different latitude-altitude scaling systems in use worked
out by different researchers.

Variability of the Earth’s magnetic field: this could be a additional
source of error for Phillips et al. (1996), who use samples from 19-70°
latitude.

Chemical extraction procedures?

Whole rock analysis vs. mineral separates? It seems that the whole rock
analysis method and the resulting optimization problem may underestimate
the significance of other production pathways, i.e. Fe and Ti
spallation?"

The Himalayan mountains are said by most modern scientists to have started their
uplift or orogeny some 50 million years ago. However, recently in 2008 Yang Wang
et. al. of Florida State University found thick layers of ancient lake
sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower
elevations and warmer, wetter climates. Paleo-magnetic studies determined the
sample’s age to be only 2 or 3 million years old, not tens of millions of years
old according to Wang in a 2008 interview with Science Daily:

Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain
its towering present-day elevations — rendering it inhospitable to the
plants and animals that once thrived there — as recently as 2-3 million
years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have
generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of
methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of
the region…

"So far, my research colleagues and I have only worked in two basins in
Tibet, representing a very small fraction of the Plateau, but it is very
exciting that our work to-date has yielded surprising results that are
inconsistent with the popular view of Tibetan uplift," she said. (
Link
)

This finding contrasts
sharply with mainstream thinking to include a 2009 paper by Louis Derry (Cornell
University) and Christian Lanord (Centre des Recherches Pétrographiques et
Géochimiques, France) who wrote a short paper entitled, "When did the Himalayas
Get High?" They argue that the Bengal Fan in the Bay of Bengal is at least 20
million years old and that the Himalayas have been uplifted for about the same
period of time (i.e., 20 million years). (
Link
)

Other Methods:

Dalrymple's work early work on 26
historic lava flows showed that many of them had excess argon and were not set
to zero at the eruption of the volcano.The following is the data from these tests: 5

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801)
1.05 to 1.19 million years

Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC)
100,000 years

Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972)
150,000 years

Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD
1915) 130,000 years

Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD
1064-1065) 210,000 to 220,000 years

Glass Mountain (BP 130-390)
130,000 years in the future

Mt. Mihara (AD 1951)
70,000 years in the future

Sakurajima (AD 1946)
200,000 years in the future

Dalrymple comments on such findings by saying, "With the
exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and
36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar
ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks
a few million years or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar
ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are
representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in
approximately one out of three volcanic rocks."

Dalrymple may have a point. It seems like rocks dating within
one or two million years cannot be accurately dated by K-Ar techniques just
because of the relatively wide ranges of error. However, can rocks that
are tens or hundreds of millions of years be more accurately dated?
Perhaps, if these rocks were in fact closed systems and were not subject to
contamination by external argon.

Investigators also have found that
excess 40Ar is trapped in the minerals within lava flows.7, 8, 9
Several instances have been reported of phenocrysts with K-Ar "ages" 1-7
millions years greater than that of the whole rock, and one K-Ar "date" on
olivine phenocrysts in a recent (<13,000 year old) basalt was greater than 110
Ma.10
Laboratory experiments have tested the solubility of argon in synthetic basalt
melts and their constituent minerals, with olivine retaining 0.34 ppm 40Ar.11,
12It was concluded that the argon is held
primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.

The obvious conclusion most
investigators have reached is that the excess 40Ar had to be present
in the molten lavas when extruded, which then did not completely degas as they
cooled, the excess 40Ar becoming trapped in constituent minerals and
the rock fabrics themselves. However, from whence comes the excess 40Ar,
that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to atmospheric
argon or in situ radioactive decay of 40K? It is not simply
"magmatic" argon? Funkhouser and Naughton found that the excess 40Ar
in the 1800-1801 Hualalai flow, Hawaii, resided in fluid and gaseous inclusions
in olivine, plagioclase, and pyroxene in ultramafic xenoliths in the basalt, and
was sufficient to yield "ages" of 2.6 Ma to 2960 Ma.13 Thus, since
the ultramafic xenoliths and the basaltic magmas came from the mantle, the
excess 40Ar*
must initially reside there, to be transported to the earth's surface in the
magmas.

Many recent studies confirm the mantle
source of excess 40Ar. Hawaiian volcanism is typically cited as
resulting from a mantle plume, most investigators now conceding that excess
40Ar in the lavas, including those from the active Loihi and Kilauea
volcanoes, is indicative of the mantle source area from which the magmas came.
Considerable excess 40Ar measured in ultramafic mantle xenoliths from
Kerguelen Archipelago in the southern Indian Ocean likewise is regarded as the
mantle source signature of hotspot volcanism.14 Indeed, data from
single vesicles in mid-ocean ridge basalt samples dredged from the North
Atlantic suggest the excess
40Ar in the upper mantle may be almost double previous estimates,
that is, almost 150 times more than the atmospheric content (relative to 36Ar).15
Another study on the same samples indicates the upper mantle content of
40Ar could be even ten times higher.16

Further confirmation comes from
diamonds, which form in the mantle and are carried by explosive volcanism into
the upper crust and to the surface. When Zashu et al. obtained a K-Ar isochron
"age" of 6.0±0.3 Ga for 10 Zaire diamonds, it was obvious excess 40Ar
was responsible, because the diamonds could not be older than the earth itself.14
These same diamonds produced 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra
yielding a ~5.7 Ga isochron.17 It was concluded that the
40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance
and is found in tiny inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite
flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite
which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar
'age' of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite
which formed in 1986 give K-Ar 'ages 'from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass
concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These dates are, of course,
preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (no radiogenic argon was present
when the rock formed) is brought into question.
Instead, data from the Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant "excess"
argon was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of
orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon
within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained
this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of
argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral
crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure.
Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally,
plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates very much older than its
true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of
this Mount St. Helens dacite brings yet another question to mind: How
accurate are K-Ar "ages" from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows
world-wide?18

Potassium is about 2.5% of the earth's crust. About 1/10,000 of
potassium is 40K, which decays into 40Ar with a half-life
of 1.25 billion years. Actually, only about 1/10th of the40K
decays to Argon, and the rest decays to calcium.
Argon is about 3.6 x 10-4 % of the earth's crust. We can assume then
that the magma is probably about 2.5% potassium and about 0.00025% of the
radioactive form, Potassium-40 (40K).
Now, Lets say we are trying to date a one billion year old rock.How much of it would be 40K?Starting with 0.00025% as the modern concentration of 40K in
magma, we would have to divide by roughly two (About one half-life).This would leave us with a 0.000125% of 40K.Now, about 90% of the decay product is calcium and only about 10% is
Ar-40.This gives about 0.0000125% 40Ar
in the total make-up of the rock.This is about one
ten millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny fraction.If the rock weighed one gram, the Ar-40 in the rock would weight one ten
millionth of a gram.And yet, with a relatively
large amount of argon in the air, argon filtering up from rocks below, excess
argon in lava, the fact that argon and potassium are water soluble, and the fact
that argon is mobile in rock and is a gas, we are still expecting this wisp of
argon gas to tell us how old the rock is?The percentage of 40Ar is even less for younger rocks. For
example, it would be about one part in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of
50-60 million years old.However, to get just one
part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to
get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than
one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would
suffice to give a rock an average computed potassium-argon age of over a billion
years.Some geochronologists believe that a possible
cause of excess argon is that argon diffuses into certain minerals progressively
with time and pressure.Significant quantities of argon may be introduced into a mineral even at
pressures as low as one bar.

We can also consider the average abundance of argon in the crust.If we assume that a rock has 1/400,000 40K, that is, 2.5 x 10-6
40K, and 3.6 x 10-6 40Ar, then eight times this much 40K
must have decayed, thus about 28.8 x 10-6 parts of 40K
have decayed, so there is less than 1/10 of the original 40K left.
This implies a radiometric age of over 4 billion years.So a rock can get a very old radiometric age just by having average
amounts of potassium and argon.It seems reasonable
to me that the large radiometric ages are simply a consequence of mixing, and
not related to ages at all, at least not necessarily the ages of the rocks
themselves. The rates of exchange that would mess up “dates” are very small. It
seems to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter most, if not all,
volcanic type rocks through tiny openings and invalidate almost all K-Ar ages.
Rocks are not sealed off from the environment. Even if magma was
set to “zero time” at the eruption of a volcano, over the course of eons of time
and exposure to atmospheric and other sources of extraneous argon, it would seem
that contamination would be inevitable.This
contamination would seem to be more and more of a problem the older the rock
became.

Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth's
crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth's crust is believed to be potassium, and
about 1/10,000 of this is 40K, which decays to 40Ar with a
half-life of about 1.25 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the
earth's crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the
top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some
rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will
enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from
rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as
it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along
with helium and other radioactive decay products.All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in
between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere.But, we know that some minerals absorb argon (“correction factors” are
applied for this when using K-Ar dating). So this argon that is being produced
will leave some rocks and enter others.The various pressures, temperatures, moisture, nature of the materials
and a variety of other factors all play together to challenge the validity of
K-Ar and/or Ar-Ar dating.

It is often said that a great many dating methods, used on a single
specimen, will agree with each other, thus establishing the accuracy of the date
given.In reality, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil
bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method (Recall
that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon (a gas) is mobile in
rock.)

"The construction of this time scale was based on about 380
radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the
presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages
that did not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed
chemical and/or physical modifications that made the "ages" unreliable
indicators of real time. About 85% of the selections were K-Ar date s, 8%
rubidium-strontium dates, and 4% uranium-lead dates."

Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily
reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the
K-Ar method with itself (Especially noting that
Dalrymple suggested that only K-Ar dating methods were at all trust worthy).I have seen no good double-blinded research studies that say otherwise.One would think that if this were a good science, then such studies would
be done and published, but they are strangely lacking.

Also, specific differences are known and have been known to exist
between different dating methods. For example, Isotopic studies of the
Cardenas Basalt and associated Proterozoic diabase sills and dikes have produced
a geologic mystery. Using the conventional assumptions of radioisotope dating,
the Rb-Sr and K-Ar systems should give concordant "ages". However, it has been
known for over 20 years that the two systems give discordant "ages", the K-Ar
"age" being significantly younger than the Rb-Sr "age".

The "argon reset model" was the first explanation proposed for the
discordance. A metamorphic event is supposed to have expelled significant argon
from these rocks. The reset model is unable to reconcile the new data, leading
to a metamorphic event which is excessively young and inconsistent with the
conventional stratigraphic interpretation.

The "argon leakage model" also attempts to explain why these rocks
have about half the argon which seems to be required by the Rb-Sr system.
The leakage model supposes an incredible improbability. Both the old and new
data imply that the rocks leaked argon in nearly exact proportion to the
abundance of potassium producing a "leakage isochron", an explanation not
supported by a quantity of an appropriate mineral or mesostasis phase. Strong
negative correlation between K-Ar model age and K2O in the upper
portion of the Cardenas Basalt is not easily explained in a consistent manner.
Furthermore, reset and leakage models have difficulty explaining the abundance
of initial 36Ar in the rocks, especially the abundance of 36Ar
in those rocks which supposedly leaked the most 40Ar.

Three alternatives are suggested to the two argon loss models. The
"argon inheritance model" and "argon mixing model" simply propose that argon is
positively correlated with potassium from its magma source or produced by a
mixing process, and that the linear relationship on a plot of 40Ar
versus 40K is an artifact of the magma, not produced by radioisotope
decay within these rocks. The inheritance of argon seems to be a better model
than is the mixing model. The "change of decay model" goes to the physics of
radioisotope decay and proposes a fundamental change in 87Rb and/or
40K decay. All three explanations offered as alternatives to the argon
loss models invalidate using the K-Ar system as conventional geochronology would
assume. 23

The word "isochron" basically means "same age". Isochron
dating is based on the ability to draw a straight line between data points that
are thought to have formed at the same time. The slope of this line is
used to calculate an age of the sample in isochron radiometric dating. The
isochron method of dating is perhaps the most logically sound of all the dating
methods - at first approximation. This method seems to have
internal measures to weed out those specimens that are not adequate for
radiometric evaluation. Also, the various isochron dating systems seem
to eliminate the problem of not knowing how much daughter element was present
when the rock formed.

Isochron dating is unique in that it goes beyond measurements of
parent and daughter isotopes to calculate the age of the sample based on a
simple ratio of parent to daughter isotopes and a decay rate constant - plus one
other key measurement. What is needed is a measurement of a second isotope
of the same element as the daughter isotope. Also, several different
measurements are needed from various locations and materials within the
specimen. This is different from the normal single point test used with
the other "generic" methods. To make the straight line needed for
isochron dating each group of measurements (parent - P, daughter - D, daughter
isotope - Di) is plotted as a data point on a graph. The X-axis on the
graph is the ratio of P to Di. For example, consider the following isochron graph: 21

Obviously, if a line were drawn between these data points on the
graph, there would be a very nice straight line with a positive slope.
Such a straight line would seem to indicate a strong correlation between the
amount of P in each sample and the extent to which the sample is enriched in D
relative to Di. Obviously one would expect an increase in the ratio of D
as compared with Di over time because P is constantly decaying into D, but not
into Di. So, Di stays the same while D increases over time.

But, what if the original rock was homogenous when it was made?
What if all the minerals were evenly distributed throughout, atom for atom?
What would an isochron of this rock look like? It would look like a single
dot on the graph. Why? Because, any testing of any portion of the
object would give the same results.

The funny thing is, as rocks cool, different minerals within the
rock attract certain atoms more than others. Because of this, certain
mineral crystals within a rock will incorporate different elements into their
structure based on their chemical differences. However, since
isotopes of the same element have the same chemical properties, there will be no
preference in the inclusion of any one isotope over any other in any particular
crystalline mineral as it forms. Thus, each crystal will have the same
D/Di ratio of the original source material. So, when put on an isochron
graph, each mineral will have the same Y-value. However, the P
element is chemically different from the D/Di element. Therefore,
different minerals will select different ratios of P as compared with D/Di.
Such variations in P to D/Di ratios in different elements would be plotted on an
isochron graph as a straight, flat line (no slope).

Since a perfectly horizontal line is likely obtained from a rock as
soon as it solidifies, such a horizontal line is consistent with a "zero age."
In this way, even if the daughter element is present initially when the rock is
formed, its presence does not necessarily invalidate the clock. Time might
still be able to be determined based on changes in the slope of this horizontal
line.

As time passes, P decays into D in each sample. That means
that P decreases while D increases. This results in a movement of the data
points. Each data point moves to the left (decrease in P) and upwards
(increase in D). Since radioactive decay proceeds in a proportional
manner, the data points with the most P will move the most in a given amount of
time. Thus, the data points maintain their linear arrangement over time as
the slope between them increases. The degree of slope can then be used to
calculate the time since the line was horizontal or "newly formed". The slope created by these points is the age and the
intercept is the initial daughter ratio. The scheme is mathematically sound.

The nice thing about isochrons is that they would seem to
be able to detect any sort of contamination of the specimen over time. If
any data point became contaminated by outside material, it would no longer find
itself in such a nice linear pattern. Thus, isochrons do indeed seem
to contain somewhat of an internal indicator or control for contamination that
indicates the general suitability or unsuitability of a specimen for dating.

So, it is
starting to look like isochron dating has solved some of the major problems of
other dating methods. However, isochron dating is still based on certain
assumptions.

All areas of a given
specimen formed at the same time

The specimen was
entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed)

Limited
Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading)

Isochrons that are
based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen

Given these assumptions and the above discussion on isochron
dating, some interesting problems arise as one considers certain published
isochron dates. As it turns out, up to "90%" of all published dates based
on isochrons are "whole-rock" isochrons.22

So, what exactly is a whole-rock isochron? Whole-rock
isochrons are isochrons that are based, not on intra-rock crystals, but on
variations in the non-crystalline portions of a given rock. In other
words, sample variations in P are found in different parts of the same rock
without being involved with crystalline matrix uptake. This is a problem
because the basis of isochron dating is founded on the assumption of original
homogeny. If the rock, when it formed, was originally homogenous, then the
P element would be equally distributed throughout. Over time, this
homogeny would not change. Thus, any such whole-rock variations in P at
some later time would mean that the original rock was never homogenous when it
formed. Because of this problem, whole-rock isochrons are invalid,
representing the original incomplete mixing of two or more sources.

Interestingly enough, whole rock isochrons can be used as a test to
see if the sample shows evidence of mixing. If there is a variation in the
P values of a whole rock isochron, then any isochron obtained via crystal based
studies will be automatically invalid. The P values of various whole-rock
samples must all be the same, falling on a single point on the graph. If
such whole-rock samples are identical as far as their P values, mixing would
still not be ruled out completely, but at least all available tests to detect
mixing would have been satisfied. And yet, such whole-rock isochrons are
commonly published. For example, many isochrons used to date meteorites
are most probably the result of mixing since they are based on whole-rock
analysis, not on crystalline analysis.22

There are also methods used to detect the presence of mixing with
crystalline isochron analysis. If a certain correlation is present, the
isochron may be caused by a mixing. However, even if the correlation is present,
it does not mean the isochron is caused by a mixing, and even if the correlation
is absent, the isochron could still be caused by a more complex mixing
(Woodmorappe, 1999, pp. 69-71). Therefore such tests are of questionable value.25

Interestingly, mainstream scientists are also starting to question
the validity of isochron dating. In January of 2005, four geologists from the
UK, Wisconsin and California, writing in Geology, wrote:

The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous
rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are
identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic
rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many
instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or
imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation
to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age
determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate
isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however,
it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways. . .

[Beyond this, the geologist has to know that the rock had (1) slow
diffusion and (2) rapid cooling. But then,] The cooling history will
depend on the volume of magma involved and its starting temperature, which in
turn is a function of its composition. . .

If the initial variation is systematic (e.g., due to open-system
mixing or contamination), then isochrons are generated that can be very good
[based on their fit to the graph], but the ages are geologically meaningless.50

In short, isochron dating is not the independent dating method that
it was once thought. As with the other dating methods discussed already,
isochron dating is also dependent upon "independent age determinations".

Isochrons have been touted by the uniformitarians as a fail-safe
method for dating rocks, because the data points are supposed to be
self-checking (Kenneth Miller used
this argument in a debate against Henry Morris years ago.) Now, these
geologists, publishing in the premiere geological journal in the world, are
telling us that isochrons can look perfect on paper yet give
meaningless
ages, by orders of magnitude, if the initial conditions are not known, or if the
rocks were open systems at some time in the past?!

That sounds like what young earth creationists have been
complaining about all along. But then, these geologists put a happy face
on the situation. It’s not all bad news, they say, because if the
geologist can know the true age by another method, he can glean some useful
information out of the errors. The problem is that it is starting to get
really difficult to find a truly independent dating method out of all the
various dating methods available.

Uranium-238 has a half-life decay of 4.5 billion years. It gives rise to Thorium-234

Thorium-234 has a half-life decay of 24 days. It's daughter product is protactinium-234.

Protactinium-234 decays in about one minute. It gives rise to uranium-234.

Uranium-234 has a half-life of 233,000 years. It yields Thorium-230.

Thorium-230 takes about 83,000 years to decay. It's daughter product is radium-226.

Radium-226 decays in 1600 years. It is converted to radon-222.

Radon-222 takes 3.8 days to decay into polonium-218.

Polonium-218 has the short life of 3 minutes before it is decayed into the next product on our list, lead-214.

Lead-214 takes 24 minutes to decay into bismuth-214.

Bismuth-214 lives only 20 minutes before becoming polonium-214.

Polonium-214 has the short life of 150 microseconds before converting itself to lead-210.

Lead-210 yields bismuth-210 in about 22 years.

Bismuth-210 then gives rise to polonium-210 in about 5 days.

Polonium-210 finally decays into lead-206 which is stable.

"Simple
laboratory (Hf) leaching experiments of zircon provide a clear link between
enhanced solubility of U234 and radiogenic lead due to alpha-recoil damage
(Davis and Krogh submitted; Mattinson 1994). Furthermore, because most upper
crustal rocks cooled below annealing temperatures long after their formation,
early formed lead rich in Pb207 is locked in annealed sites so that the
leachable component is enriched in recently formed Pb206. The isotopic
composition of the leachable lead component then depends more on the cooling
history and annealing temperatures of each host mineral than on their geological
age; and the axiom that Pb isotopes cannot be fractionated in the natural
environment, is invalid. . . Although these experiments are based on a strong Hf
attack on zircons, we believe, given the widespread U234 anomalies (of several
hundred percent) observed in groundwater (Osmond and Cowart 1992), that they
apply to the differential mobility of radiogenic Pb isotopes on a local and
global scale."33

Also, consider the following excerpt concerning ancient zirons from the
Gabbro-Peridotite Complex of the Mar:

"All the grains are characterized by high common Pb content: 206Pb/204Pb ratios
are in the interval 18.36-18.66 [usually around 5000]. There was constructed
Pb-Pb isochron on the four points of studied zircon with the age corresponding
to 3476+/-510 Ma (MSWD=0.4). High error of the age estimation is caused by
rather limited variation of 206Pb/204Pb ratio in the studied zircons and a
comparatively high error in determination of Pb isotope composition. Zircon age
calculations on the base of Upb systematics have been complicated by high share
of common Pb and uncertainty of its isotope composition. . . . Common lead was
captured in the process of zircon crystallization, perhaps, by mineral and fluid
inclusions. But there is a small share of inherited zircon substance with the
age of 3.0-3.5 Ga in the composition of the studied zircon. Thus, the discordia
itself obtained by us is interpreted as a result of mixture of newly formed
young zircon with some share of Archean zircon presented in each studied
crystal."34

Consider as well that
the "206Pb/204Pb ratio, used for contamination

control and common lead correction, is limited to a precision of 3-10%
RSD."35

Also, if errors for individual zircon tests are too large, these values are
simply discarded.Those "analyses with large errors
that can be attributed to the presence of zoning, cracks and inclusions in the
analyzed zircon"Such data are simply "rejected from the dataset." In addition, "High
uranium content may cause a zircon to become metamict due to destruction of the
crystal lattice by radiation. This enhances the mobility of U and especially
Pb."So, high uranium content is "also a reason for
rejection of some analyses." A "correction is also applied for common Pb on the
basis of the abundance of 204Pb, which was typically 10 ppm in all standards
measured and variable in the samples."36

So, how confident can one be in zircon dates who's published 204Pb levels range
from very high to very low?It seems to me that quite often published U-Pb and Pb-Pb dates do in fact
involve fairly significant 204Pb levels.33,37,38Certainly there are "correction" factors to and methods of selection are
used compensate for this common lead, but how are these calibrated and how is
the reliability of the calibration and selection method determined? Of course,
if the level of 204Pb is too high, the data obtained is not calibrated, but is
simply discarded.39And, what about the fact that other isotopes of uranium, thorium, as well
as the many lead isotopes move around, in and out of zircon crystals, as a
function of temperature, radiation, and other sorts of factors over time?Doesn't this mess up the idea that all lead in zircons must be the result
of radioactive decay?

It is also of interest
in regard to radiometric dating that Robert Gentry claims to have found
"squashed" polonium haloes as well as embryonic uranium radiohaloes in coal deposits from many
geological layers claimed to be hundreds of millions of years old. (See the Oct.15, 1976
issue of Science.) These haloes represent particles of polonium and uranium,
which penetrated into the coal at some point and produced a halo by radioactive
decay. The fact that they are squashed indicates that part of the decay process
began before the material was compressed, so the polonium had to be present
before compression. Since coal is relatively incompressible, Gentry concludes
that these particles of uranium and polonium must have entered the deposit
before it turned to coal. However, there is only a very small amount of lead
with the uranium; if the uranium had entered hundreds of millions of years ago,
then there should be much more lead. With very little evidence or obvious method
of diffusion or other forms of loss the amount of lead present is
consistent with an age of thousands rather than millions of years.
However, it's just hard to believe, according to conventional geological time
scales, that this coal was compressed any time within the past several thousand
or even hundred million years.

Some have argued that "radon 222
that results from uranium decay is an inert gas and may have escaped, resulting
in little lead being deposited. This would make the observed haloes consistent
with an old age for the coal." However, the fact that these uranium haloes are
"embryonic (very faint) also argues for a young age. In addition, not all of the
radon would be on the surface of the particles of uranium. That which was inside
or bordering on coal would likely not be able to escape. Since radon 222 has a
half-life of about 4 days, it would not have much time to escape, in any event.
Such haloes were also found in shale, with young U/Pb ages as well, and it may
be less likely for the radon to escape from shale."40,41

What happens when something is dated as being very old, but shows
little or no physical signs of relative aging? For example, consider the Columbia
River Basalt Group (CRBG) located in the northwestern part of the United
States (eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and western Idaho). This basalt
group is rather large covering an area of 163,700 square kilometers and fills a
volume of 174,000 cubic kilometers. The vast extent and sheer volume of such
individual flows are orders of magnitude larger than anything ever recorded in
known human history. Within this group are around 300
individual lava flows each of rather uniform thickness over many kilometers with
several extending up to 750 kilometers from their origin. The CRBG is believed to span the Miocene Epoch over a period
of 11 million years (from ~17 to 6 million years ago via radiometric dating).26

Now, the problem with the idea that these flows span a period of
over 11 million years of deposition is that there is significant physical
evidence that the CRBG flows were deposited relatively rapidly with respect to
each other and with themselves. The average time between each flow works
out to around 36,000 years, but where is the erosion to the individual layers of
basalt that one would expect to see after 36,000 years of exposure? The very
fact that these flows cover such great distances indicate that the individual
flows traveled at a high rate of speed in order to avoid solidification before
they covered such huge areas as they did. Also, there are several examples
where two or three different flows within the CRBG mix with each other.
This suggests that some of the individual flows did not have enough time to
solidify before the next flow(s) occurred. If some 36,000 years of time
are supposed to separate each of the individual flows where is the evidence of
erosion in the form of valleys or gullies cutting into the individual lava flows
to be filled in by the next lava flow? There are no beds of basalt
boulders that would would expect to be formed over such spans of time between
individual flows.

Some have suggested that the rates of erosion on these basalts was
so minimal (< 0.5 cm/k.y.) that it would not have resulted in a significant
change even after 36,000 years. However, a recent real time study by Riebe
et. al. to determine the effects of various climatic conditions on erosion rates
of granite showed that erosion rates averaged 4cm per 1,000 years (k.y.) with a
range of between 2cm/k.y. and 50cm/k.y. What is especially interesting is
that despite ranges in climate involving between 20 to 180 cm/yr of annual
precipitation and between 4 to 15 °C the average erosion rates varied by only
2.5 fold across all the sites and were not correlated with climate indicating
that climatic variations weakly regulate the rates of granitic erosion.27
Another fairly recent paper, by Lasaga and Rye, from the Yale University
Department of Geology and Geophysics, noted that the average erosion rates of
basalts from the Columbia River and Idaho regions is "about 4 times as fast as
non-basaltic rocks" - to include granite.28 This suggests that
one could reasonable expect the erosion rate of basalts to average 16 to 20
cm/k.y. Over the course of 36,000 years this works out to between 6 to 7
meters (19 to 23 feet) of vertical erosion. This is significant erosion
and there should be evidence of this sort of erosion if the time gap between
flow was really 36,000 years. So, where is this evidence?

For several other such flows in the United States and elsewhere
around the world the time intervals between flows are thought to be even longer
- and yet still there is little evidence of the erosion that would be expected
after such passages of time. For example, the Lincoln Porphyry of Colorado was
originally thought to be a single unit because of the geographic proximity of
the outcrops and the mineralogical and chemical similarities throughout the
formation. Later, this idea was revised after radiometric dating placed
various layers of the Lincoln Porphyry almost 30 million years apart in time.
But how can such layers which show little if any evidence of interim erosion
have been laid down thousands much less millions of years apart in time?
Other examples, such as the Garrawilla Lavas of New South Wales, Australia, are
found between the Upper Triassic and Jurassic layers and yet these lavas, over a
very large area, grade imperceptibly into lavas which overlie Lower Tertiary
sedimentary rock (supposedly laid down over 100 million years later). 26
Robert Kingham noted, concerning this formation, in the 1998 Australian Geologic
Survey Organization that that, "Triassic sediments unconformably overlie the
Permian sequences. . . The Napperby depositional sequence represents the upper
limit of the Gunnedah Basin sequence, with a regional unconformity existing
between the Triassic and overlying Jurassic sediments of the Surat Basin north
of the Liverpool Ranges. The Gunnedah Basin sequence includes a number of basic
intrusions of Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks. These are associated with massive
extrusions of the Garrawilla Volcanic complex and the Liverpool, Warrumbungle
and Nandewar Ranges."29 Now, isn't it interesting that Tertiary
sediments in the Gunnedah Basin sequence, which are thought to be over 100
million years younger, exist between Triassic and Jurassic sediments?

Also, throughout the CRBG and elsewhere are found "pillow lava" and
palagonite formations - especially near the periphery of the lava flows.
There are a few outcrops where tens of meters of vertical outcrop and hundreds
of meters of horizontal outcrop consist entirely of pillow structures.
Also, palagonite, with a greenish-yellow appearance produced via the reaction of
hot lava coming in contact with water, is found throughout. These features
are suggestive of lava flow formation in a very wet or even underwater
environment. Certainly pillow lavas indicate underwater deposition, but
note that lavas can be extruded subaqeously without the production of pillow
structures. The potential to form pillow lava decreases as the volume of
extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area between lava and
water (where pillow formations can potentially form) becomes proportionately
smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes larger. Other evidences of
underwater formation include the finding of fresh water fossils (such as sponge
spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) between individual lava flows.
Consider some interesting conclusions about these findings by Barnett and Fisk
in a 1980 paper published in the journal, Northwest Science:

The Palouse Falls palynoflora reflects reasonably well the
regional climatic conditions as evidence by the related floras of the Columbia
Plateau. The presence of planktonic forms, aquatic macrophytes, and marsh plants
indicates that deposition of the sediments took place in a body of water,
probably a pond or lake. This interpretation is supported by the presence of
abundant diatoms. The general decrease in aquatic plants and increase in forest
elements upward in the section suggest a shallowing or infilling of the pond or
lake, perhaps due to increased volcanic activity and erosion of ash from the
surrounding region. Supporting this view is the presence of thin bands of
lignite near the top of the section, with a 1-10 cm coal layer just underlying
the capping basalt. 31

Now, what is interesting here is that these "forest elements" to
include large lenses of fossilized wood are widely divergent in the type of
preserved wood found. It is interesting that hundreds of species are found
all mixed up together ranging from temperate birch and spruce to subtropical
Eucalyptus and bald cypress. The petrified logs have been stripped of
limbs and bark and are generally found in the pillow complexes of the basaltic
flows, implying that water preserved the wood from being completely destroyed by
the intense heat of the lava as it buried them.

For Barnett and Fisk to suggest that the finding of such fossil
remains suggest the presence of a small pond or lake being filled in by
successive flows just doesn't seem to add up. How are such ecologically
divergent trees going to get concentrated around an infilling pond or lake?
Also, how is a 10cm layer of coal going to be able to form under the "capping
basalt"? It is supposed to take very long periods of time, great pressure,
heat, and moisture to produce coal. How did this very thin layer of coal
form and then be preserved without evidence of any sort of uneven erosion by a
relatively thin layer of capping basalt? Also, numerous well-rounded
quartzite gravel, cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded within and above the
basalt flows.26 How did these quartzite boulders, cobbles, and gravel
get transported hundreds of miles by enough water to form tiny ponds and small
shallow lakes? Does this make any sense? It seems more likely that
huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved in formation of many of
these features - concentrating and transporting mats of widely divergent
vegetation and inorganic rocks over long distances before they were buried by
shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly over huge areas.

Lava traveling rapidly under water would experience rapid surface
cooling and fracturing of this surface "skin". As it turns out, entablatures and
colonnades are a common structural feature of basalts. These features are named
by analogy to the respective horizontal and vertical architectural structures.
Some have hypothesized that as water cools the outer "skin" of the molten lava a
thin crust is rapidly formed. Then, the large temperature gradient between
the crust above and the molten lava below creates tensional stresses that crack
the crust which allow water to percolate through these cracks to come in contact
with more molten lava and form another crust, which then cracks . . . and
the cycle of crust formation and cracking continues. In the end, this
rapid cyclical cooling process produces a thick slab of rock with columnar
jointing.26

One other evidence of fairly rapid cooling is the finding that
these basalts contain relatively small crystals. When magma cools,
crystals form because the solution is super-saturated with respect to some
minerals. If the magma cools quickly, the crystals do not have much time to
form, so they are very small. If the magma cools slowly, then the crystals have
enough time to grow and become large. For comparison, consider that some
granites contain minerals which are up to one meter in diameter! The size
of crystals in an igneous rock is thought to be an important indicator of the
conditions where the rock formed. A rock with small crystals probably formed at
or near the surface and cooled quickly.30

Many other examples of paraconformities
and other types of gaps in time, like these, have been described and no one
seems to have a very good explanation for them. Even as far back as 1967,
Newell, a well-known geologist noted, "The origin of paraconformities is
uncertain, and I certainly do not have a simple solution to this problem." It
seems like it is much easier to defend the notion that there simply were no vast
spans of time separating the various layers found in the geologic column.
Contrary to the popular notion that geological processes are extremely slow and
gradual, the geology of the Earth shows clear evidence of being dominated by
relatively shortly spaced massive watery catastrophes. The idea that
millions of years can be accommodated in the gaps between sedimentary layers
does not stand up to critical scientific examination. These facts are consistent
with the view that our planet has had a short but dynamic history.32

"Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are
dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were
present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious
limitations on the accumulation clock. Rigorously closed systems probably do not
exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the
requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem
is one of judicious geologic selection.", Henry Fall, "ASSUMPTIONS", AGES OF
ROCKS, PLANETS & STARS, p.vi.

"Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of
uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's
life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium
present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one
part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally
enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D.
Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118

"What complicates things for the uranium-lead method is
that nonradiogenic lead 204, 206, 207 and 208 also exist naturally, and
scientists are not sure what the ratios of nonradiogenic to radiogenic lead were
early in the moon's history...The problem of how much lead was around to begin
with still remains...If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium,
uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would
be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently
older...Isotopic ages have been obtained for material from five landing sites on
the moon--those of Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15 and Luna 16; each site has a
different age. But in a given site, the ages also vary...Ideally, however, any
one basaltic rock from a given site should yield the same isotopic age,
regardless of the method used.", Everly Driscoll, "DATING OF MOON SAMPLES:
PITFALLS AND PARADOXES", Science News, Vol. 101, p. 12

"Studies of the helium method (2) have shown that low ages
based on helium, obtained on common rockforming minerals, do not necessarily
reflect diffusive loss of helium from the lattices of those minerals; under
ideal conditions, some mineral lattices even appear to retain helium
quantitatively for longer than 10 8years." Fanale & Schaeffer, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Science
Vol.149, p.312

"There has been in recent years the horrible realization
that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they
immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks
are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to
a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory
of man." Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC,
Industrial Research & Development, p.21, Tune 1982

"It is now well known that KAr ages obtained from
different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Joan C.
Engels, “DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK”, Journal of Geology, ,Vol.79, p.609

"We suspect that the lack of concordance may result in
some part, from the choice of isotope ratios from primitive lead, rather than
from lead gain or Uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of the
classical interpretation of the meteorite, lead isotope data is in doubt and
that the radiometric estimates of the age of the earth are placed in jeopardy."
Gail, Arden, & Huchenson Oxford, FOUNDATION DECAYS, Nature, Vol.240, p.67.

"The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts
erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured.
Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22
million years for lavas deduced to be recent....it is possible to deduce that
these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in
fact, may be very recent...", C.S. Nobel & J.J. Naughton, RECENT LAVA @ 22M,
Dept. of Chem, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, Science, Vol.162, p.265

"In conventional interpretation of KAr age data, it is
common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with
the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time
scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily
attributed to excess or loss of argon." A. HAYATSU, “ARBITRARY”, Dept. of
Geophysics, U. of Western Ontario, Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.

"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed
to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are
seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained." R. L. MAUGER, E.
Carolina U., DISSENTERS EJECTED, Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17

"If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it
was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of
u238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no
differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been
transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate
of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the
magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter
product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it
is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of
time...It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating
methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum
by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by
hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term
radiological clock.The uncertainties inherent in
radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists...". W.D.
Stansfield, Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt. State U., THE SCIENCE OF
EVOLUTION, 1977, p.84.

"The two principle problems have been the uncertainties in
the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to
retain the argon produced by this decay.”G.W. Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic
Time," in Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545.

"The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the
1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Porphyritic dacite, which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986,
gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age ' of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral
concentrates from the dacite, which formed in 1986, give K-Ar 'ages 'from 0.34 ±
0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate).
These 'ages 'are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption
('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed ') is questioned by these
data. Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant
'excess argon 'was present when the lava solidified in 1986."
Steven A. Austin, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal Vol. 10 (Part 3) - ISSN
1036 CEN Tech. J, 1996.

"Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock
useless for potassium-argon dating . . We have analyzed several devitrified
glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave
virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that
devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit." J.F.
Evernden, et. al., "K / A Dates and Cenozoic Mannalian Chronology of North
America," in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154.

"As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample
of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." L.A.
Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," in
Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical
Union (1967), p. 167.

“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and
potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the
potassium-argon ‘clock’ did not get set back to zero.Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in Auckland Bay area of
New Zealand provide a prime example.The carbon-14
age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic
material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.” (Harold Coffin, Origin by
Design, pp. 400.)

"Actually, the method (of comparing lead isotopes to make
specimen dating more accurate) is subject to several errors. [1] Loss of radon
222 raises the lead: lead ratio and the calculated age. [2] A rather large error
may be introduced by the uncertainty in the composition of the original lead.
This error may exceed the measured value when dealing with younger uranium
minerals containing even small amounts of original lead, as clearly recognized
by Holmes when the method was first proposed. [3] Presence of old radiogenic
lead (formed in a prior site of the parent uranium) may cause great error. [4]
Instrumental errors in mass spectrometry may yield consistently high apparent
proportions of lead 204 and lead 207. [5] Re-distribution of elements by renewed
hydrothermal activity may be a serious source of error in all-lead methods.
Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 295.

"And what essentially is this actual time scale? On what
criteria does it rest? When all is winnowed out and the grain reclaimed from the
chaff it is certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic
record [strata dating based on index fossil theories] and highly likely that the
physical record [radioactive dating] is the chaff "~*E.M. Spieker,
"Mountain-Building Chronology and the Nature of the Geologic Time-Scale," in
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p
1806.

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other
markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always
drastically lower than either of the others. "L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks,"
in Science, May 18, 1956, p.872.

"Most of the ages obtained by the lead:thorium method
disagree with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods. The
reasons for this disagreement are largely unknown.Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p.295.

"The most reasonable age (from among the many conflicting
"dates" offered) can be selected only alter careful consideration of independent
geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence,
and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.”
L.R. Stief, T.W. Stem and R.N. Eichler, "Algebraic and Graphic Methods for
Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Papers, No. 414-E (1963).